I mentioned Archie Rice back a bit ago because it’s one of the parts that is notorious for requiring a tremendous amount of memorization. For Grs who aren’t familiar with The Entertainer, it’s the fifties, Archie Rice is trying to make a living at the tail end of the music hall business, and we alternate between his ratty little family and his ratty little stage act.
It’s also famous for the following story: Laurence Olivier had seen John Osborne’s first major play, Look Back in Anger, and hated it. When Arthur Miller came to London and wanted to see it, Mr. Olivier tried to dissuade him but failed, and then showed up to watch it again alongside the great American playwright. Mr. Miller loved it, not surprisingly; Mr. Olivier took him back to meet Mr. Osborne and turned on the famous charm, asking the young fellow if he could write a part for him. It’s not that the great classical actor changed his mind about the play (in my version of the story), it’s that he recognized that if that crap was the sort of thing people were going to like, then he should get into some of it, because otherwise you wind up like…
…well, like Archie Rice. Or, since that’s what’s going on as well, like England.
That said, it’s a terrific part, but I don’t think it’s a very entertaining play. Or, rather, it’s the sort of play I don’t find very entertaining. Ratty little people just like ratty little people I don’t want to spend time with, behaving in just the way that makes me not want to spend time with them. In The Entertainer, that’s broken up with bits of the sort of show that nobody in his right mind would ever want to see.
Tolerabimus quod tolerare debemus,
-Vardibidian.
Have you seen the play?
I saw it once, some years ago now in New Haven, and my recollection is Archie Rice is pretty much as you describe him, but the play is made more enjoyable to watch because some of the surrounding characters are also terrific parts, and much more enjoyable people. Speaking only from memory, Archie’s father is a great, great character, and one of the women also.
I see _The Entertainer_ as a meaningful play, and not just as an exercise in nastiness, because some members of the family find ways to retain dignity and decency while Archie doesn’t. His situation is tragic in a way, but he is too small a person to rise to tragic stature.
I wouldn’t go out of my way to see it again, mind you, but if I had an opportunity to see a good production, I’d go, I think. (Credit for the opportunity to see it for the first time goes to a good friend with whom I saw a number of plays at that time and with whom I have fallen out of touch, so I shouldn’t comment on the play without giving credit where it is due.)
I’ve never seen it, but I’d like to, if only to see how Archie’s scenes really work.
Another Lord Larry note: when he was sent the first draft of the play, he wanted to play Billy (the father); he only later decided to take the lead.
Thanks,
-V.